Paradigms are thinking structures, collections of
theoretical models and beliefs that determine how we look at a particular
piece of reality. It is the glasses that we use to look at reality. Examples
are:
- the neo-liberal view of the economy (with the centrality of competition,
self-interest and the 'invisible hand';
causes of the financial and economic crisis of 2008;
- the mechanical and chemistry based view of medical problems;
- the vision of leadership based on biological
mechanisms of superiority and power;
- the vision of work organization based on specialization, inspired by the assembly line system;
- the 'alternative' way to build a sustainable
economy (1);
- the vision on motivation by using external
stimuli such as rewards (as a result of 'Behaviorism')
- the central place of psychoanalysis in psychiatry and the use of chemical drugs for treatment
of mental problems
Paradigms are
formed as a result of generally accepted knowledge that is brought together at a
certain moment, and which serves as a basis for further development. The starting points are no longer being questioned,
because they have been sufficiently proven in the past. It could, however, be that in the meantime
those principles have become obsolete due to new knowledge or circumstances
that are no longer the same. Changing paradigms is a very difficult process,
and besides time also requires a lot of energy and synchronous events is a
social context. The uniqueness of paradigms is indeed that they are supported
by multiple people. That social support makes it difficult for individuals to
be the first or only one to move away from a particular paradigm, because
social pressure will occur.
The contemporary vision on leadership largely goes against the
prevailing paradigm of power thinking. Elsewhere we have presented five paradigms about management and leadership
on a schedule to place this evolution in a timeline. (2) In its book of 1989, Marilyn Ferguson (3) already convincingly argued that system thinking in the 21st century will, perhaps in all sciences, replace
existing paradigms. A very interesting analysis of the neurological
mechanisms behind paradigms can be found with Ch. Jacobs (4). This analysis largely explains why changes
in paradigms are so difficult. After all, new combinations of cells need
to be developed in the brain that replace the old patterns after a competitive
struggle.
Paradigms may
also be seen as coherent and collective sets of beliefs. Beliefs are rules or statements about
reality that we think are correct. In this way we have stored a long (clustered) list of beliefs in our minds, which serve
as the basis for our logical actions. In some cases, even the consistency within
that list is not really strong, and it looks more like a random collection,
sometimes more or less coherent. Either way, they determine our actions and
make it hard to 'be convinced' of the contrary. The strongest 'box' in the expression 'out of the box thinking' consists of the perpetual paradigm. To think 'out of the box', one must be able to question one's
beliefs.
A useful way
to deal with this challenge in a more realistic and productive way is to
investigate where our beliefs come from, and what they are based on. It becomes easier to put them into
perspective, and possibly moving away from them if it seems useful. The reason for this is explained elsewhere
by the description of the stages of behavioral change. (5)
A first type
of belief is 'rational'. They are based on reliable information and
a product of analysis and rational thinking. This category is commonly called 'knowledge'. These beliefs are reasonably reliable,
although they can still be connected to a certain prevailing paradigm, with all
relativity attached to it. They are however quite easily changed if new information
becomes available. (However;
it seems that there is a
growing network of people who believe that the world is flat!) The main reason
is that there is – mostly -little emotion associated with the existing belief. We do a kind of 're-processing' and come to
a different conclusion, period! In realty we see that many people,
especially managers, apparently assume that all the beliefs of others are
rational, and that they can therefore be changed by argumentation and information. They invest a lot of time in that, with a
lot of frustration as a result. There are indeed four other sources of
beliefs that are not rational, and therefore cannot be changed in this way
either.
The second
source of our beliefs are experiences. When we have a certain experience, and
when it goes together with a strong emotion, then the conclusions will yield
strong beliefs. People who have ever had great fears in a certain situation,
caused by a certain group of people, will develop strong prejudices against this
group of people. Their further action against that group of people will mainly be the result of that
conviction, and not the objective situation in which they find themselves.
A The third source are beliefs that we have taken from influential people in our lives. From our parents, for example, but also from teachers, our first supervisor,
... we subconsciously adopt beliefs. People who act as role models for us are
copied, especially in the first phases of our lives. We do that subconsciously, but the result
is that our way of thinking about certain topics is strongly influenced by this. Managers grow up in a certain leadership
culture and take on the underlying convictions. They do not realize that this way of
thinking and acting is only one possible option, because they have never seen
anything else. This is also the mechanism behind the
international differences in leadership thinking. This ensures that those differences also
exist very long, because they will be kept alive by all concerned. It is apparently difficult to think 'outside
the box'. This has to do with both temptation
(exemplary behavior) and social pressure (the social environment does not
tolerate thinking and/or acting differently). The cultural environment in which we grow
up brings certain obviousness with it, which we
consider normal and, because of our need for security, will even consider evident
and necessary. In an environment that we like to belong
to, we will feel obliged to a certain extent to follow the existing world of
thought. To fight against that flow requires a
strong personality, and that is above all a matter of ‘daring’, not of ‘knowing’.
The fourth source has to do with defending interests or positions. Someone who wants to make career in a
company will usually willingly confirm the beliefs that are part of the culture, not only for
copying as
a mechanism,
but because it gives definite career prospects.
Someone who
likes to drive a large car (status-sensitive, self-needy) will easily create
beliefs that these ingredients are necessary to have a positive commercial
appearance. In practice, the car this person is
traveling with may not be noticed at all. The conviction is therefore not based on
facts, but on the emotional need to defend interests. It is obvious that a low maturity (much
uncertainty, sensitive to status and ego-driven attitude) form a strong emotional motivation to
develop and maintain he related supportive beliefs. After all, interests become paramount.
Another
notable example is the behavior of some hunters who convince themselves that
they are working on nature conservation because they cannot resist hunting
because of the ‘thrill’.
The fifth
source is a special application of " cognitive dissonance ", a psychological survival method
described by Festinger ( 6 ). This is a particularly important mechanism
for human behavior, both academics and
practitioners. The mechanism means that we want to reduce
the difference between what we know on the one hand and what we do on the
other.
This
difference is particularly disturbing, because in this case we know that we are
doing the wrong things. It creates a problem of conscience, and
that must be solved. We must release ourselves from that negative pressure. It would be logic that we would then
adjust our behavior to the standards that we know and consider relevant. However, this is quite difficult in some
cases. It is then easier to adjust our beliefs. So we create convictions that must support
and justify our existing behavior. This mechanism will occur whenever it
concerns behavior that is difficult to change. All external sources of beliefs as
described above can trigger the mechanism of "reduction of cognitive
dissonance." Every time we have a strong reason to follow a certain
conviction, our own knowledge will have to give way and our conviction will go
in the direction of that strong external pressure. This is of course the strongest when the
pressure comes from within. Our way of 'being', our personality is
often the basis of our behavior.
The reason
for this is that it is based, for example, on temperament (our collection of
genetically and biologically determined possibilities and limitations) or on
our scripts, behavioral patterns that strongly color our personality (see elsewhere under the heading 'scripts'). But our degree of maturity also determines
our behavior, and therefore triggers that mechanism of 'cognitive dissonance'
(see elsewhere on the role of maturity). Anyway, if we color our behavior in a
certain way for certain reasons, and that motivation is strong enough, then it
will determine our way of thinking about that subject, out of pure self-protection.
Very
fundamental values, existing paradigms or very deep-seated beliefs can also be
the cause of 'Cognitive dissonance'. An example of the latter is a certain
image of man. If that view of man means that people are
seen as enemies, for whatever reason, then other beliefs must be compatible
with this. We will further see that the existence of
scripts very often activates the mechanism of cognitive dissonance. The persons involved, for example with a control institution, are very
difficult to convince of a different approach to leadership. There is a good chance that they have not
read this text up to this point!
This vision
of human beliefs is closely related to the approach of NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming). An excellent and fairly neutral, sober
approach to beliefs can be found in the work of Harry Palmer (7). However, he limits himself to raising
awareness of the importance of our beliefs in our lives, and of their relative
nature. We have considered it useful to reflect on
the mechanisms that determine our beliefs, in order to support a tool for
change (coaching).
Indeed, once
one becomes aware of the origin of a certain belief, it is much easier to put
it into perspective. What also helps is to critically examine this overview
of observations so that the entire mechanism of beliefs in human actions
becomes clearer, including the relative values of our existing beliefs.
OBSERVATIONS:
1.
We need beliefs
2.
Their content is very relative
3.
We defend them with great diligence
4.
We are looking for confirmation: formation of groups
5.
We observe reality with our beliefs as colored filters
6.
It is not easy to convince someone
7.
Only a small minority of our beliefs are reliable
(rational)
8.
The greater the need for someone to be confirmed in
their beliefs, the harder it becomes to cooperate with that person.
We do indeed
need convictions to cope with life. They are foundations of our choices, stored
safely and always available, in such a way that we do not always have to look
for the right way to assess situations. Its existence makes decision-making faster
and consistent decisions possible, and can therefore be seen as an essential
part of our behavior.
But the
content is very personal. The combination of driving forces, the
result is a lofty personal list of principles. They are more or less consistent in
content, but each list is unique. Moreover, each list fits more or less in a
paradigm, certainly if the owner of the list has a strong need to conform to
his social environment. Stubbern individualists have their own list!
Because they
are so essential to our behavior and because we also derive a part of our
identity from it, we will not just give up our beliefs. We defend them as if we are defending
ourselves. In fact, we want to be surrounded by
people who share our beliefs. Confirmation of our beliefs is a form of
self-acceptance. Social security is not possible if we do not experience support at this level
either. Perhaps that is why in our modern times we
often have more connection with like-minded people at a distance than with
people who live very close by (neighbors and family). In this sense, religions are perhaps an
answer to a fundamental human need of surrounding oneself by like-minded
people. That way we can better predict the
behavior of others, and feel more safe.
Dealing with
reality is also clouded by our beliefs. What doesn't fit might be interpreted with
a bit 'creativity' or become selectively interpreted. The lower the maturity of a person (see elsewhere), the more they are likely to
find their own belief more relevant, and thus will selectively interpret
situations to see confirmation. This means that dealing with a complex
reality, apart from the obvious certainties, so also when practicing science or
dealing with organizational problems or religious subjects, our own beliefs
make us blind for reality. We see what we want to see. The stronger the need for
self-confirmation, the stronger that becomes, and the more we are in a kind of
'bubble' with a limited view of reality. Being creative and 'out of the box thinking' is therefore also linked to
being able to put one's own beliefs into perspective, and is also bound to
maturity, as will become clear later. But it seems like an important skill in
developing knowledge.
On this basis
we could give two different definitions of experience:
- the number of times someone has confirmed his/her
existing beliefs by selectively observing reality.
- the number of times someone has changed he/her
beliefs because they turned out not to be productive or correct.
The
experience of low-maturity people is therefore not really a plus! It is rather a persistent problem.
The consequences
of these findings are that persuading people is not a simple matter. Contrary to what we sometimes would
expect, people are not waiting to drop their beliefs and take over yours. However, on average we invest a lot of
energy in achieving that, and again, the lower the maturity of, for example, a manager, the more energy he or she will
invest there. The results are usually very
disappointing, even if we use logical and rational arguments and have good
verbal skills. After all, most people's beliefs are not
based on rationality (at most 15%?), but on the four other elements described
above. It is therefore naive to assume that they
can be changed with rationality. The other motives are stronger and more
deeply anchored, and will therefore usually win. unless, of course, you
deliberately dive into a coaching process where you explicitly question your
own beliefs. In that case there is a considerable
chance that change will take place. NLP training is aimed at this, at least if they are not a cover for
other forms of behavioral reflection.
Instead of
investing our energy in changing the beliefs of others (which stimulates polarity) , we may be better off by focusing on for
similarities and common actions. It is ultimately not important who is
right, but what we can agree to try. As long as people are stuck in the struggle for being right, there is
negative energy and the results are limited. See also elsewhere in the description of the transactional analysis mechanism. As soon as people focus on things they can
agree on, even if they deviate from their own ideas, progress remains possible. We see this approach reflected in the part
where we talk about decision-making and the integration of participation.
It is
useful to conclude that a person who insists on being right and trying to impose their own beliefs on
others is a difficult person to work with. No one is looking forward to having such a
person as his supervisor or as his employee. And this is regardless of whether that
person is right or not!
The mechanism for developing beliefs means
that we have roughly three groups of beliefs: a world view, a view of man and a
self-image. All three are very important for our
attitude and interaction with life, and therefore also for the results that we
are able to achieve.
The world view gives us a perception of the
environment in which we live, and what dynamics lead to any results. It determines our selection in strategies
that we develop for survival, success, .. but also for our views on the environment,
global warming, purchasing behavior, etc.
Our image of
man is very important for our social behavior. Do we believe that people are good, or
rather that evil prevails. Are people competitors to even untrustworthy enemies
(or opponents), or rather allies. Are we starting from an idea that everyone
functions the same, or do we see differences and can we link this to a
realistic consequence? It also determines our focus on
connectedness, competition, charity or condemnation.
The
self-image is very important to find our place in the two previous images. Without a positive self-image, survival
will be difficult, certainly if the world view and the view of man are
perceived as threatening and dangerous. Then attention will be paid to the
competences needed to win the social struggle. In this way perhaps a big ego is
stimulated; a self-overestimate that can even assume
narcissistic proportions.
Finally, a
few examples of beliefs that can be very
life-determining:
BELIEFS -
examples
1- "Life is a struggle
2- " business is war"
3- " all people are selfish"
4- " it is not important what you know, but who
you know"
5- " promotion is a reward for good performance /
behavior"
6- " If I confront my boss with his mistakes, I
will be fired"
7- " I am too old to find another job"
8- " If you punish a criminal hard enough, he will
change his behavior"
9- " the best job in the world is a job for the
government"
10- " the ideal life is one of doing nothing"
11- ' if I work hard I will be able to enjoy and
rest during my retirement'
12- ' if I have a diploma, I don't have to prove
anything else'
For each of
these beliefs, as for all others, two interesting questions can be asked:
- how does someone come to such a conviction? (use the five possible sources described above)
- what are the consequences if one uses this belief?
Hugo Der
Kinderen (January 2019)
(1 ) Peter Tom Jones, Terra Reversa , The transition to fair sustainability,
Epo, Berchem, 2009
(2) See 'Five
paradigms for leadership' on hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be
(3) M. Ferguson , The Aquarius conspiracy, Houghton
Mifflin, 1980
(4) Charles
Jacobs, Management rewired, Penguin Books, New York, 2009
(5) See 'The dynamics of behavioral change' on
hugoderkinderen.blogspot.be
(6) see eg. M. Vervoort, Pioneers in psychology,
Nijgh & Van Ditmar , Amsterdam, 2000
( 7 ) Harry Palmer, Living deliberately, Star’s
Edge Int., 1994
No comments:
Post a Comment